HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-4228.Ranger.23-08-21 DecisionCrown Employees
Grievance
Settlement Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Commission de
règlement des griefs
des employés de la
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
GSB# 2021-4228; 2022-1666
UNION# 2021-0424-0002; 2022-0424-0001
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
(Ranger) Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Solicitor General) Employer
BEFORE Daniel Harris Arbitrator
FOR THE UNION Craig Flood
Koskie Minsky LLP
Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER Jonathan Rabinovitch
Treasury Board Secretariat
Legal Services Branch
Counsel
HEARING August 17, 2023
- 2 -
Decision
[1] This decision deals with two grievances filed by OPSEU on behalf of Robert
Ranger, who is employed by the Ministry of the Solicitor General at the Ottawa
Centre Probation and Parole Office.
[2] Chronologically, the first grievance, dated November 17, 2021, relates to
allegations of a failure to ensure a safe workplace and a poisoned work
environment in breach of the Collective Agreement, the Ontario Human Rights
Code and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. This grievance is OPSEU File
No. 2021-0424-0002. Although it is before the Board, it had not been assigned to
me as of August 17, 2023.
[3] The second grievance, dated March 16, 2022, relates to allegations that the
employer breached the collective agreement and the Ontario Human Rights Code
by not returning the grievor to work promptly enough from a leave of absence due
to illness. This grievance is OPSEU File No.2022-0424-0001 and GSB File No.
2022-1666. It is the matter that was referred to me and scheduled for hearing by
the Board on August 17, 2023.
[4] At the hearing on August 17, 2023 the parties agreed that I would hear and
determine both grievances together. For the sake of clarity, they are not being
consolidated.
[5] The parties' made representations with respect to the procedures to be followed in
the hearing of these two cases. Having considered those representations, I
hereby give the following directions:
a) Although the union bares the onus of proof, the employer will call its
case first;
b) The parties are to exchange arguably relevant documents and
provide particulars of their cases to each other;
- 3 -
c) The parties are to explore entering into an agreed statement of
facts in order to expedite the hearing of these matters. The employer will
present a proposed statement to the union for its consideration and as the
basis for further discussion between the parties in order to try to reach
agreement upon the salient facts;
d) It is acknowledged by the parties that I am hearing ongoing
litigation between them dealing, in part, with the contentious work
relationship between the grievor and a co-worker, Janine Sarrazin, which
may, in part, also be raised by the facts in issue in these proceedings.
Nonetheless, the facts in issue in the instant matters are to be limited to
events that took place between July 12, 2021 and March 14, 2022, being
the first day worked by a co-worker, Diane Cave, and the date that the
grievor returned to work from the sick leave referenced in the second
chronological grievance in these proceedings. Should such evidence
advert to an event prior to this time-frame, its relevance and admissibility
may be raised at that juncture as in the normal course of a hearing.
However, subject only to the dictates of natural justice, this time frame is
to be honoured;
e) Either party may contact me to arrange a meeting if necessary for
my assistance by way of further directions or otherwise with respect to the
foregoing.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 21st day of August 2023.
“Daniel Harris”
_____________________
Daniel Harris, Arbitrator